Merged Are Holder and Obama racists? / DOJ dismisses Black Panther case

[Cicero]

that link doesn't contradict Unabogie's statement.

But let's examine another post of Unabogie's hard on for the TPP.

I told you. If you think a bunch of overweight, disability check receiving, uninformed racists hanging around with Orange Pekoe on their hats calling me a "socialist" deserve my respect and civility, you're frankly mistaken. They deserve harsh mockery and they're getting it.

Did TPP people become "wealthier" from disability checks? I didn't see that in the NYT poll. Of course, all of Unabogie's petty pusillanimous pot shots were missing from the NYT poll.

 

[Cicero]

I agree. Publicity is what they wanted it and conservative news outlets are giving it to them.

You mean the liberal lame stream media wouldn't want to portray Black Panthers in a bad light, or they wouldn't want word to get around about voter intimidation at a polling center? You are correct. Those are not of interest to them, unless of course the two guys happened to be Caucasian.

But they will ask my neighbor to leave the property as a measure to keep the peace.

But the cops didn't ask the two guys to leave because they were on private property. They were asked to leave because the cops believed their presence did intimidate perspective voters.

 

[joobz]

You mean the liberal lame stream media wouldn't want to portray Black Panthers in a bad light, or they wouldn't want word to get around about voter intimidation at a polling center? You are correct. Those are not of interest to them, unless of course the two guys happened to be Caucasian.

Oh, i'm sorry. I thought you wanted honest discussion.
Oh well.

But the cops didn't ask the two guys to leave because they were on private property. They were asked to leave because the cops believed their presence did intimidate perspective voters.

you are a mind reader now. interesting.

 

[Cicero]

Oh, i'm sorry. I thought you wanted honest discussion.
Oh well.

Honest discussion to you is saying, "Publicity is what they wanted it and conservative news outlets are giving it to them." Really? What is your explanation for why you believe the lame stream media was not covering it at the time?

you are a mind reader now. interesting.

Not even a lip reader as the cop plainly said at .27 in the YouTube video, "Sir, you can't stop people from voting."

 

[joobz]

Honest discussion to you is saying, "Publicity is what they wanted it and conservative news outlets are giving it to them." Really? What is your explanation for why you believe the lame stream media was not covering it at the time?

Because as the facts have panned out that it is a non-issue.
If you think this raises concerns about there being too high an evidentiary bar, that's one thing. But the question is why this case and not past cases?

Not even a lip reader as the cop plainly said at .27 in the YouTube video, "Sir, you can't stop people from voting."

You are right, good point.
The odd part is that we see in the videos people entering and leaving the voting area. You are using a police opinion that contradicts the video evidence.

 

[YoPopa]

The odd part is that we see in the videos people entering and leaving the voting area. You are using a police opinion that contradicts the video evidence.

Are you saying that because they did not intimidate everyone that is evidence that they did not intimidate anyone out of voting while they were there? That would be a very lame argument.

 

[joobz]

Are you saying that because they did not intimidate everyone that is evidence that they did not intimidate anyone out of voting while they were there? That would be a very lame argument.

You are right, that would be a lame argument. good thing I didn't say that.


What I'm saying is that we don't have sufficient evidence of the intimidation. We have implication that that is what there were doing, but clearly as has been stated by the DoJ, not evidence of the level required to prove it.

We do have evidence of carrying a weapon at the site, hence the reason for the indictment.

Like I said, If the argument is that the standard of evidence is too high, I agree. IF the argument is that the DoJ, on racist grounds, failed to file criminal charges, I fully disagree.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, the cops have side arms; he only had a nightstick. Not to mention both of them knew they were being recorded on video. But why would they resist? They already got the exposure they wanted.

Excuse me. Have you some video showing them actually causing people not to enter the polling place? Something smells wrong about this. There were, apparently, people in place with video-recording capability who were interested in showing us video of the cops making them leave. They were, however, not apparently interested in showing us the behavior that caused the cops to be there. Smells really fishy to me.

 

[joobz]

Excuse me. Have you some video showing them actually causing people not to enter the polling place? Something smells wrong about this. There were, apparently, people in place with video-recording capability who were interested in showing us video of the cops making them leave. They were, however, not apparently interested in showing us the behavior that caused the cops to be there. Smells really fishy to me.

The reality is that they probably were causing some problems, but were smart enough not to do anything overtly stupid with a camera on. The police came and made them leave. This was the proper course of action.

 

[BeAChooser]

Publicity is what they wanted it and conservative news outlets are giving it to them.

You think this is the sort of publicity they wanted?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8uMM58a6SE "New Black Panther Party Leader Malik Shabazz Heaping Praise on Osama Bin Laden" just 6 months after 9/11

Why is the Obama administration going out of it's way to protect this organization and it's members? This is a anti-American hate group.

Why hasn't the Obama adminstration had anything to say about this other than "no comment"?

Why hasn't the Obama administration done anything other than stonewall? In fact, when Adam's resigned over this matter (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ver-black-panthers-stonewalling-94202249.html ) he stated in his letter of resignation that:

the events surrounding the dismissal of United States v. New Black Panther Party, et al., after the trial team sought and obtained an entry of default, has subjected me, Mr. Christopher Coates, and potentially at some point, all members of the team, to a subpoena from the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

… snip …

we have been ordered not to comply with the subpoena

That's stonewalling. To protect what? Shabazz? The NBP? Reverse racism? Or something even more serious? Take a look at this video clip folks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccbd4DbpS4c&feature=player_embedded "Evidence - Obama Stole Election Against Hillary Voter Intimidation And Fraud"

And who exactly gave the order to not cooperate with a subpoena in the Black Panther case? More than a few people need to be put under oath so we can get to the bottom of this, folks. Rather than let the Obama administration and the mainstream media sweep another one under the rug simply because they now control the DOJ. Didn't we learn anything from the 8 years of Bill Clinton?

 

[joobz]

You think this is the sort of publicity they wanted?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8uMM58a6SE "New Black Panther Party Leader Malik Shabazz Heaping Praise on Osama Bin Laden" just 6 months after 9/11

Yup.

Why is the Obama administration going out of it's way to protect this organization and it's members? This is a anti-American hate group.

Don't you mean Bush's DoJ?

 

[BeAChooser]

Don't you mean Bush's DoJ?

Like I pointed out to ANTPogo, had the Bush administration filed criminal charges, your side of the political aisle would likely have jumped up and down calling Bush a racist. And as I pointed out, the Bush administration might have had logically valid reasons for deciding to make it a civil rather then criminal case. Perhaps they decided they could get an effective penalty against these men without making it a criminal case. Perhaps they reasoned that in these times of extreme political division (as evident even in a forum like JREF), they stood less of a chance of getting a jury conviction in a criminal case than in a civil case, where the requirements for jury agreement aren't has high.

The issue here (as indicated in the OP) is why the Obama administration decided to effectively put aside a judgment by a court against the men in the civil case that was filed. I really doubt that the Bush adminstration would have done that. Do you?

So charges of racism, especially when one of the attorneys on the case says that senior officials in the Obama administration indicated there would be no Voting-Rights complaints filed where the victims were white, seem appropriate. And your unwillingness to honestly address that, or face the fact that the Obama administrations seems to be protecting an racially motivated hate group, is noted.

 

[joobz]

Like I pointed out to ANTPogo, had the Bush administration filed criminal charges, your side of the political aisle would likely have jumped up and down calling Bush a racist.

So it's the left's fault that Bush's DoJ didn't prosecute?
What happened to personal responsibility that I thought conservatives advocate?

And as I pointed out, the Bush administration might have had logically valid reasons for deciding to make it a civil rather then criminal case. Perhaps they decided they could get an effective penalty against these men without making it a criminal case. Perhaps they reasoned that in these times of extreme political division (as evident even in a forum like JREF), they stood less of a chance of getting a jury conviction in a criminal case than in a civil case, where the requirements for jury agreement aren't has high.

interesting that you find so many reasonable arguments to defend Bush's administrative handling of this situation.

One must wonder why you don't use the same reasoning for Obama's.....

 

[BeAChooser]

So it's the left's fault that Bush's DoJ didn't prosecute?
What happened to personal responsibility that I thought conservatives advocate?

Bush's personal responsibility is not the topic of this OP. It wasn't Bush that promised hope and change. Please desist from trying to drag the thread off-topic, joobz.

 

[joobz]

Bush's personal responsibility is not the topic of this OP. It wasn't Bush that promised hope and change. Please desist from trying to drag the thread off-topic, joobz.

I am merely exposing your rather imbalanced approach to this issue.
you've already admitted that you aren't interested in voter rights in general. You are merely using this issue to characterize Obama as a racist.

Funny how you didn't call Bush a racist for not prosecuting the minutemen or Shabazz.

 

[BeAChooser]

I am merely exposing your rather imbalanced approach to this issue.

You can *try* to do that in a separate thread. What Bush did or didn't do is not the topic of this thread. So please desist from trying to make it the topic.

 

[joobz]

You can *try* to do that in a separate thread. What Bush did or didn't do is not the topic of this thread. So please desist from trying to make it the topic.

Your unwillingness to address this issue settles the matter.

The Obama DoJ has done nothing "racist" here.


In truth, I do hope this issue raises the curtain on voter practices and strengthens the application of laws to protect voters. One must wonder why the case precedence has allowed this tradition of "difficult to prosecute" to develop. Unfortunately, your narrow view of what is on topic will not allow such a discussion to take place.


As such, we are merely limited to demonstrating why one cannot call Obama racist for doing exactly what Bush did.

 

[Dancing David]

You can *try* to do that in a separate thread. What Bush did or didn't do is not the topic of this thread. So please desist from trying to make it the topic.

Yup, but when you ask why certain things were not persecuted , it does matter that it was the Bush DoJ. They were the ones in charge at the time. Obama's admin dismissed two of the chargees and continued with the third. But if you are asking why criminal procedings did not occur, that is a question for the Bush admin.

So if the question is "Why were charges dismissed?:, Obama/Holder
So if the question is "Why were criminal charges not persued?":, Bush/Mukasey

 

[BeAChooser]

Your unwillingness to address this issue settles the matter.

The Obama DoJ has done nothing "racist" here.

So just because this thread is not about Bush, Obama's DOJ can not possibly have done anything "racist" here.

As such, we are merely limited to demonstrating why one cannot call Obama racist for doing exactly what Bush did.

Except that's not true. You of course are perfectly entitled to prove that ... on another thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

But if you are asking why criminal procedings did not occur, that is a question for the Bush admin.

Except I didn't ask that in this thread. It's not a question in the OP, nor was it even mentioned until post #45 when someone from your side of this debate raised it.

I really wish you would stay on topic, David.